Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 164–168 | Cite as

The Impact of Expressions of Treatment Efficacy and Out-of-pocket Expenses on Patient and Physician Interest in Osteoporosis Treatment: Implications for Pay-for-performance Programs

  • Christine A. SinskyEmail author
  • Valerie Foreman-Hoffman
  • Peter Cram
Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are increasingly used as the basis for pay-for-performance (P4P) programs. It is unclear how support for guidelines varies when treatment efficacy is expressed in varying mathematically equivalent ways.

OBJECTIVES

To assess: (1) how patient and provider compliance with osteoporosis CPGs varies when pharmacotherapy efficacy is presented as relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR) and (2) the impact of increasing out-of-pocket drug expenditures on acceptance of guideline concordant therapy.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of patients and physicians.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

Female patients age >50 years and providers drawn from academic and community outpatient clinics.

MEASUREMENTS

Patient and provider acceptance of pharmacotherapy when treatment efficacy (reduction in hip fractures) was expressed alternatively in relative terms (35% RRR) versus absolute terms (1% ARR); acceptance of pharmacotherapy as patient drug copayment increased from 0% to 100% of the total drug costs.

RESULTS

Compliance with CPGs fell significantly when the expression of treatment benefit was switched from RRR to ARR for both patients (86% vs 57% compliance; P < .001) and physicians (97% vs 56% compliance; P < .001). Increasing drug copayment from 0% to 10% of total drug cost decreased patient compliance with CPGs from 80% to 57% (P < .001) but did not impact physician compliance. With increasing levels of copay, both patient and provider interest in treatment decreased.

LIMITATIONS

Respondents may not have fully understood the risks and benefits associated with osteoporosis and its treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patient and provider interest in CPG-recommended treatment for osteoporosis is reduced when treatment benefit is expressed as ARR rather than RRR. In addition, minimal increases in drug copayment significantly decreased patient, but not provider, interest in osteoporosis treatment. Designers of P4P programs should consider details including expressions of treatment benefit and patients’ out-of-pocket costs when developing measures to assess quality-of-care.

Keywords

treatment efficacy out-of-pocket expenses osteoporosis treatment pay-for-performance programs 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Dr. Cram is supported by a K23 career development award (RR01997201) from the NCRR at the NIH.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

References

  1. 1.
    Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance research: how to learn what clinicians and policy makers need to know. JAMA. 2005;294:1821–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosenthal MB, Frank RG, Li Z, Epstein AM. Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA. 2005;294:1788–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levin-Scherz J, DeVita N, Timbie J. Impact of pay-for-performance contracts and network registry on diabetes and asthma HEDIS measures in an integrated delivery network. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63:14S–28S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Milgate K, Cheng SB. Pay-for-performance: the MedPAC perspective. Health Aff. 2006;25:413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodenheimer T, May JH, Berenson RA, Coughlan J. Can money buy quality? Physician response to pay for performance. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2005;(102)1–4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ray NF, Chan JK, Thamer M, Melton LJ. Medical expenditures for the treatment of osteoporotic fractures in the United States in 1995: report from the National Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Miner Res. 1997;12:24–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown JP, Josse RG, Scientific Advisory Council of the Osteoporosis Society of C. 2002 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in Canada. CMAJ. 2002;167:S1–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:526–28.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Geriatrics Society Pay for Performance Proposal. Available at: http://www.americangeriatrics.org/policy/2006p4p_proposal.shtml. Accessed December 7, 2007.
  11. 11.
    CMS Physician Voluntary Reporting Program. Available at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=1701. Accessed December 7, 2007.
  12. 12.
    Hodgson SF, Watts NB, Bilezikian JP, et al. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists medical guidelines for clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2001 edition, with selected updates for 2003. Endocr Pract. 2003;9:544–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Bmj. 2003;327:741–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gigerenzer G. Why does framing influence judgment? J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:960–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:543–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson HD, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Allan JD. Screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:529–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Retail Pricing for Alendronate at Drugstore.com. Available at: http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/prices/drugprice.asp?ndc=00006093682&trx=1Z5006. Accessed June 14, 2006.
  18. 18.
    Ancker JS, Kaufman D. Rethinking health numeracy: a multidisciplinary literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:713–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:916–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients’ acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15:152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Halvorsen PA, Selmer, Kristiansen IS. Different ways to describe the benefits of risk-reducing treatments: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:848–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92:121–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. Therapeutic priorities of Canadian internists. CMAJ. 1990;142:329–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krumholz HM. Guideline recommendations and results: the importance of the linkage. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:342–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine A. Sinsky
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valerie Foreman-Hoffman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Peter Cram
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineMedical Associates Clinic and Health PlansDubuqueUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of MedicineUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Center for Research in the Implementation of Innovative Strategies for Practice (CRIISP)Iowa City Veterans Administration Medical CenterIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations